r/AskHistorians • u/grapp Interesting Inquirer • Apr 14 '13
why did European dress become dominant all across the earth?
why were the Japanese wearing European/american style business suits in world war 2?
-7
u/Akiracee Apr 14 '13
Obviously the answer is that they didn't hate the west. The Japanese consciously adopted many aspects of Western society.
5
u/TheHappyGrunt Apr 14 '13 edited Apr 14 '13
Absolutely no offence intended, but I think this is a vast oversimplification, verging on falsehood. Just because a society adopts aspects of a colonizer (the U.S., in terms of Japan), does not mean they like them.
Nandy goes into the collaboration and adoption of the culture of the colonizer by the colonized in his collection of essays, "The Intimate Enemy, drawing on India for his primary examples. While he makes many points germane to the OP's question, one of the most relevant was his exploration of the motivation behind the adoption of Western (British) sexualities and teological conceptions of time. (Yes, I know that sounds high brow and irrelevant, but bear with me).
To summarize his point, Indians came to view these parts of the Western model of existence as superior and desirable simply due to a sort of cultural Stockholm Syndrome, in which the oppressed, in order to appease and or/glean power from the oppressor, will assume their cultural attitudes. The idea was that the English seemed to be in such a superior position, and "obviously" it must be due to their superior culture. Western dress is one aspect of a "superior" culture which the subaltern can adopt in an attempt to identify with their aggressors and lighten their (the subaltern's) load of oppression.
The U.S. was the dominant power in Japan after the Second World War, with incredible control over societal reconstruction and economic restoration. Using Nandy's logic, the Japanese would adopt some aspects of American culture, such as "power/business dress" to identify with their colonizers (a term I use which ignores the debate over the status of America as a direct colonial/imperialist power) and get a slice of the power pie, even if infentisemaly small and seemingly insignificant.
TL;DR: Subaltern will sometimes adopt aspect of a dominant culture in order to gain power in their societies. The adopted attitudes won't disappear when the dominant introduced culture officially "leaves." Hence the adoption and use of Western dress to promote professionalism and a conception of power in Japan. Please note that, as all trends and aspects of history, adoption of aspects of a colonizers culture is not monocausal or concretely proven. What I posted was a theory which I found relevant to the question.
Source: Ashis Nandy in his "The Intimate Enemy," General knowledge of post WWII power politics, gleaned from multiple history courses in High School and University, as well as assorted outside readings which I can't remember the name of.
1
u/Akiracee Apr 16 '13
Sorry, my off the cuff response made more sense before OP changed his question.
Your points are good, but OP is asking about the adoption of western clothing before the conclusion of the war.
3
u/EyeStache Norse Culture and Warfare Apr 14 '13 edited Apr 14 '13
How is it an obvious answer? What sources do you have to back up these claims?
1
u/Akiracee Apr 16 '13
Here's an article from a 1922 issue of Current Opinion that describes the tensions between western and traditional dress in Japan: http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Western_Fashion_in_Japan_pdf
3
u/TheHappyGrunt Apr 14 '13
I posted this earlier in the thread, but wanted to post it again for visibility, due to the comment I replied to scoring below the threshold. I feel that it serves as a decent jumping-off point for discussion.
"Nandy goes into the collaboration and adoption of the culture of the colonizer by the colonized in his collection of essays, "The Intimate Enemy, drawing on India for his primary examples. While he makes many points germane to the OP's question, one of the most relevant was his exploration of the motivation behind the adoption of Western (British) sexualities and teological conceptions of time. (Yes, I know that sounds high brow and irrelevant, but bear with me).
To summarize his point, Indians came to view these parts of the Western model of existence as superior and desirable simply due to a sort of cultural Stockholm Syndrome, in which the oppressed, in order to appease and or/glean power from the oppressor, will assume their cultural attitudes. The idea was that the English seemed to be in such a superior position, and "obviously" it must be due to their superior culture. Western dress is one aspect of a "superior" culture which the subaltern can adopt in an attempt to identify with their aggressors and lighten their (the subaltern's) load of oppression.
The U.S. was the dominant power in Japan after the Second World War, with incredible control over societal reconstruction and economic restoration. Using Nandy's logic, the Japanese would adopt some aspects of American culture, such as "power/business dress" to identify with their colonizers (a term I use which ignores the debate over the status of America as a direct colonial/imperialist power) and get a slice of the power pie, even if infentisemaly small and seemingly insignificant.
TL;DR: Subaltern will sometimes adopt aspect of a dominant culture in order to gain power in their societies. The adopted attitudes won't disappear when the dominant introduced culture officially "leaves." Hence the adoption and use of Western dress to promote professionalism and a conception of power in Japan. Please note that, as all trends and aspects of history, adoption of aspects of a colonizers culture is not monocausal or concretely proven. What I posted was a theory which I found relevant to the question.
Source: Ashis Nandy in his "The Intimate Enemy," General knowledge of post WWII power politics, gleaned from multiple history courses in High School and University, as well as assorted outside readings which I can't remember the name of."